Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Bush Appoints Bolton as US Ambassadar to UN
Topic Started: Aug 1 2005, 09:11 AM (787 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

AB read carefully. You said that I was the only person who thought Bolton was unfit for the office. There are clearly several Senators invluding Republicans who share the same point of view.

The up or down vote is irrelevant to this discussion.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Aug 2 2005, 08:14 AM
AB read carefully. You said that I was the only person who thought Bolton was unfit for the office. There are clearly several Senators invluding Republicans who share the same point of view.

The up or down vote is irrelevant to this discussion.

No, the up or down vote is precisely relevant.

What would you be afraid of? What would "Crying Boy" Voinovich be afraid of? What would the rest of the twisted panty brigade on the left be afraid of?

Funny that lots of ambassadors at the UN, including the guy from Germany, are looking forward to working with Bolton, BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

So you admit that I am not alone in thinking Bolton is unfit for the post of Ambassador to the UN?
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Aug 2 2005, 08:22 AM
So you admit that I am not alone in thinking Bolton is unfit for the post of Ambassador to the UN?

Why do you keep using the word "admit" in your thread postings today? Aiming for that "GOTCHA" you keep hoping for?

Would you be happy if I included you in the "twisted panty brigade"? It includes all the Senate Democrats and George "Crying Boy" Voinovich.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

I'm just trying to keep you on the point of our discussion. You seem to want to "move the goal posts" (to coin a phrase you enjoy).
| Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
gvok
Aug 2 2005, 07:14 AM
The up or down vote is irrelevant to this discussion.

Bolton's not getting an up or down vote is why this thread exists in the first place. Thus, it is relevant.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Swidden
Aug 2 2005, 10:25 AM
gvok
Aug 2 2005, 07:14 AM
The up or down vote is irrelevant to this discussion.

Bolton's not getting an up or down vote is why this thread exists in the first place. Thus, it is relevant.

But it is not what AB and I were specifically discussing originally. I guess I'm expecting too much however.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
This from IBD:

Titled: The Right Move

http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=8/2

Quote:
 
Diplomacy: President Bush was correct to make John Bolton our man at the U.N. — even if he had to do it through a recess appointment. Now, maybe we can stop the silly political games and start reforming.

By now, Bolton is a known quantity. Few actually dispute his qualifications. Instead, they focus on that vague catchall known as "temperament" — which in this context means a reluctance to suffer fools gladly.

Yes, Bolton has a temper and has said impolitic things about the United Nations.

Democrats despise him because he's intellectually tough — a conservative, as Reuters put it, with an "incisive legal mind and the single-minded passion with which he seeks to turn those views into U.S. policy, often with great effect."

Say, isn't that the kind of person you want at the U.N.? It's exactly why we're happy that, even after the political attacks and a Senate filibuster, Bush stayed loyal to his pick.

It also says a lot about Bush's seriousness about reshaping and refocusing a world body that has spent 60 years failing at its job and growing increasingly corrupt. An enemy of the status quo, Bolton will clean the mess up.

Which explains Democrats' rage Monday. Sen. Ted Kennedy called the recess appointment "a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility." To Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, it was an "abuse of power."

Strong words. But we didn't hear a peep from Kennedy or Reid when President Clinton made 140 recess appointments during his two terms in office. Were those, too, "abuses of power" and "devious maneuvers"?

Their reaction makes it clear this isn't just about the U.N.; it's about a political party trying to cripple a president at wartime.

For the first time in a long time, a president has loyalists in control of the entire national security apparatus — including Director of Intelligence John Negroponte, CIA chief Porter Goss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Without them, Bush would face an uphill battle in revamping our intelligence, defense and diplomatic bureaucracies. With them, he'll be able to pursue reforms needed to face challenges such as the rise of China as a global military and economic power and the ongoing threat of terrorism.

Bolton is a key piece in this puzzle. Thoughtful people on the left and right agree the U.N. has failed. The oil-for-food scandal shows how corrupt it has become. And Sudan's genocide demonstrates how incapable it is of acting to stop the most heinous of crimes.

To live up to its ideals, the United Nations needs top-to-bottom reform. Bolton — who has worked with the U.N. and served in key policy posts at both the State Department and the Agency for International Development — seems just the right man for the job.


:clap: Bravo, Investors Business Daily. Teed it up and hit it long. I believe that others have the same desire.
:wave2:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Dr. Noah
Aug 1 2005, 02:22 PM
His actions or the 105th making an international circus out of it?

It seems odd to me that when a democratic president commits sexual abuse in the workplace, cheats on his wife, and then commits perjury he is not responsible but it is the fault of the media. When a republican appointee makes one simple mistake on a form it is a major character fault.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
who
Aug 2 2005, 11:53 AM
Dr. Noah
Aug 1 2005, 02:22 PM
His actions or the 105th making an international circus out of it?

It seems odd to me that when a democratic president commits sexual abuse in the workplace, cheats on his wife, and then commits perjury he is not responsible but it is the fault of the media. When a republican appointee makes one simple mistake on a form it is a major character fault.

Well, silly, it is only odd to you because you don't understand that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
UncleSlickhead
Member Avatar
High Priest of the Church of the Blalock's Booty
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 2 2005, 11:32 AM
This from IBD:

Titled: The Right Move

http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=8/2

Quote:
 
Diplomacy: President Bush was correct to make John Bolton our man at the U.N. — even if he had to do it through a recess appointment. Now, maybe we can stop the silly political games and start reforming.

By now, Bolton is a known quantity. Few actually dispute his qualifications. Instead, they focus on that vague catchall known as "temperament" — which in this context means a reluctance to suffer fools gladly.

Yes, Bolton has a temper and has said impolitic things about the United Nations.

Democrats despise him because he's intellectually tough — a conservative, as Reuters put it, with an "incisive legal mind and the single-minded passion with which he seeks to turn those views into U.S. policy, often with great effect."

Say, isn't that the kind of person you want at the U.N.? It's exactly why we're happy that, even after the political attacks and a Senate filibuster, Bush stayed loyal to his pick.

It also says a lot about Bush's seriousness about reshaping and refocusing a world body that has spent 60 years failing at its job and growing increasingly corrupt. An enemy of the status quo, Bolton will clean the mess up.

Which explains Democrats' rage Monday. Sen. Ted Kennedy called the recess appointment "a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility." To Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, it was an "abuse of power."

Strong words. But we didn't hear a peep from Kennedy or Reid when President Clinton made 140 recess appointments during his two terms in office. Were those, too, "abuses of power" and "devious maneuvers"?

Their reaction makes it clear this isn't just about the U.N.; it's about a political party trying to cripple a president at wartime.

For the first time in a long time, a president has loyalists in control of the entire national security apparatus — including Director of Intelligence John Negroponte, CIA chief Porter Goss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Without them, Bush would face an uphill battle in revamping our intelligence, defense and diplomatic bureaucracies. With them, he'll be able to pursue reforms needed to face challenges such as the rise of China as a global military and economic power and the ongoing threat of terrorism.

Bolton is a key piece in this puzzle. Thoughtful people on the left and right agree the U.N. has failed. The oil-for-food scandal shows how corrupt it has become. And Sudan's genocide demonstrates how incapable it is of acting to stop the most heinous of crimes.

To live up to its ideals, the United Nations needs top-to-bottom reform. Bolton — who has worked with the U.N. and served in key policy posts at both the State Department and the Agency for International Development — seems just the right man for the job.

This whole Bolton thing is just a gigantic red herring.
Let's take a look at the statement that Bill has so helpfully emphasized for us.

Their (the Democrats) reaction makes it clear this isn't just about the UN; it's about a political party trying to cripple a President during wartime.

Say what?
Does anyone seriously think that we're going to be in any real danger if John Bolton isn't our Ambassador to the UN?
Does anyone really think that John Bolton is going to, all by himself, turn the entire UN to the Bush Administration's way of thinking?

The fuss made by the Democrats over Bolton was nothing more than the little dog trying to outbark the big dog.

The Republicans don't care about the UN anyway, unless they can use it to their advantage. Bush only made the recess appointment of Bolton (a weasly thing to do; if he were so confident in Bolton, you'd think he'd believe that Bolton could withstand any sort of confirmation process) to thumb his nose at the Democrats.
'I can do whatever I want, and you wienies can't stop me.'

The whole affair was just the same backbiting and powerplaying that both parties always do instead of focusing on the real problems facing this country.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
... and this:

Quote:
 
For the first time in a long time, a president has loyalists in control of the entire national security apparatus — including Director of Intelligence John Negroponte, CIA chief Porter Goss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Without them, Bush would face an uphill battle in revamping our intelligence, defense and diplomatic bureaucracies. With them, he'll be able to pursue reforms needed to face challenges such as the rise of China as a global military and economic power and the ongoing threat of terrorism.

Bolton is a key piece in this puzzle. Thoughtful people on the left and right agree the U.N. has failed. The oil-for-food scandal shows how corrupt it has become. And Sudan's genocide demonstrates how incapable it is of acting to stop the most heinous of crimes.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
UncleSlickhead
Member Avatar
High Priest of the Church of the Blalock's Booty
Admiralbill_gomec
Aug 2 2005, 01:56 PM
Quote:
 
For the first time in a long time, a president has loyalists in control of the entire national security apparatus — including Director of Intelligence John Negroponte, CIA chief Porter Goss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Without them, Bush would face an uphill battle in revamping our intelligence, defense and diplomatic bureaucracies. With them, he'll be able to pursue reforms needed to face challenges such as the rise of China as a global military and economic power and the ongoing threat of terrorism.

Bolton is a key piece in this puzzle. Thoughtful people on the left and right agree the U.N. has failed. The oil-for-food scandal shows how corrupt it has become. And Sudan's genocide demonstrates how incapable it is of acting to stop the most heinous of crimes.

And again, let's take a look at the statement that Bill has so helpfully emphasized for us.

Without them, Bush would face an uphill battle in revamping our intelligence, defense, and diplomatic bureaucracies.

Say what?
Dubya only increased the level of bureaucratic crap in this country by creating the Department of Homeland Security. If Republicans are really for smaller, less intrusive government, then what's with Dubya INCREASING the size and intrusion of our government?
And Dubya doesn't really care about making this country more secure. He's unwilling to address the problem of illegal immigration to this country (quite possibly the greatest threat to national security right now) because he and the Republican Party don't want to alienate the Latino vote. And yet, if a terrorist wants to get into this country, all he has to do is cross the Rio Grande.
There is even some concern right now, that some of these MS13 gang members crossing into the U.S. may have been in contact with Al Qaeda.
But we can't do anything to address the border problems, because we don't want to alienate Latino Americans.
I'm of hispanic descent, and I wouldn't be alienated. What's going to alienate me is if Dubya decides to grant an amnesty to illegals already in the country, some of whom could be terrorists just looking for some way to legitimize their presence in the United States.
But I'm ranting.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
I kind of like what John Gibson has to say about Bolton and his new job.

Source:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164440,00.html

The Bolton Battle Is Over
Monday, August 01, 2005
By John Gibson

John Bolton (search) is finally U.N. ambassador from the United States. The president got so much flak about Bolton — he's the original blue meanie, evidently — that Bush had to use a recess appointment to get him in there.

It's an embarrassment to Bolton that the U.S. Senate wouldn't or couldn't approve him because Democrats had decided the only way to hurt Bush was to stand in the way of his appointments.

But it's also an embarrassment to the U.S. Senate — or it should be — but senators are so used to embarrassment it just doesn't get you very far in the U.S. Senate.

Anyway, Bolton is on his way to Turtle Bay, which is that spot on the East River in New York where the U.S. headquarters rises majestically and where anti-Americanism is the soup of the day. That's good. I hope Bolton doesn't worry much about diplomacy and he makes some people over there mad.

I hope he doesn't worry much about the Senate ever approving him, and he serves his term as a recess appointment, gets a few things done, and leaves with his head held high.

By the way, it isn't the same U.N. that it was a few years ago.

Now France is leading the way in profiling terrorists, tapping their phones, burglarizing their houses to plant spy chips on their computers and shipping them out of the county at the slightest provocation.

Bolton's job is to remind the world that France is doing those things, and the whining they may engage in about the U.S. in Guantanamo Bay (search) and elsewhere is just French hypocrisy. Their attitude is we can do it because we are the French, but you cannot because you are not the French.

The Italians are probably a little more pliable too, realizing they may have been harboring a few terrorists who may just bomb something nearby rather than plot against far away America.

The Canadians need a reminder or two about how they are much too accommodating to terrorists.

The Saudis need a bit of a slapping around because, after all, their official Wahhabi sect (search) is where all this stuff starts.

After a suitable period of mourning for the Saudi king who just died, we expect Bolton to hop to it.

I know we won't be disappointed.

That's My Word.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
UncleSlickhead
Member Avatar
High Priest of the Church of the Blalock's Booty
Who was the last U.S. Ambassador to the UN to actually affect the workings of the UN?
It's an empty appointment.
We may pretty much run the world, but we don't run the UN. We don't really want to be a part of the UN, we're in arrears in our dues, and we don't really care what the UN says or does.
What is the UN but a group of nations getting together to delude themselves into thinking that they can stop the U.S. from doing pretty much whatever it wants?
Our Ambassador is just someone we send to warm a chair and maintain the appearance that we consider other nations an equal partner in world affairs.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus